ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Diagnostic value of SpyGlass for pancreatic cystic lesions: comparison of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration combined with SpyGlass.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Endoscopic management of pancreatic cystic neoplasms.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Review
- Pancreatoscopy in the evaluation and management of pancreatic disorders.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
- Review
- The spearfishing sign: differentiating mucin from mural nodules in pancreatic cysts.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsNo study has evaluated the diagnostic value of SpyGlass by comparing SpyGlass results and non-SpyGlass results. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic value of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and EUS-FNA combined with SpyGlass to evaluate whether SpyGlass is valuable for increasing the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA.
methodsFrom April 2015 to April 2020, 251 patients suspected of having pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) by imaging techniques who then underwent EUS-FNA were retrospectively enrolled. Only 98 patients who underwent surgical resection with a pathological diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesion (PCL) were studied. The diagnostic performance outcomes were compared between the EUS-FNA group (EUS-FNA alone, n = 40) and the SpyGlass group (EUS-FNA combined with SpyGlass, n = 58) to assess the value of SpyGlass in diagnosing PCLs.
resultsThere were 71 females and 27 males with an overall mean age of 47.6 years. The median diameter of the PCLs was 42.2 mm (range, 11.4-100.0 mm). Approximately 37 cysts were localized in the head/neck of the pancreas, while 61 in the body/tail. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of the EUS-FNA group were 96.4% (27/28), 83.3% (10/12), 93.1% (27/29), 90.9% (10/11) and 92.5% (37/40), while those in the SpyGlass group were 100% (54/54), 75% (3/4), 98.2% (54/55), 100% (3/3) and 98.3% (57/58), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy rate in the SpyGlass group was higher than that in the EUS-FNA group; however, no significant difference was found between the two groups (P = 0.368). The diagnostic accuracy of evaluating specific cyst types in the EUS-FNA group was 85% (34/40), similar to that in the SpyGlass group (85.0% vs 84.5%, P = 0.944).
conclusionSpyGlass seems less valuable for the diagnosis of PCLs when EUS and EUS-FNA have been performed by experienced endoscopists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.